1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 18 July 2017 b. Date Received: 25 July 2017 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, is aware of the one choice that was made that resulted in discharge and accepts full responsibility. The applicant requests that the Board consider previous service in this case. Prior to the incident, which led to separation, the applicant had served honorably in the position that was heavily relied upon by the company First Sergeant and Commander. The applicant maintained all levels of security clearances to perform assigned duties and had no previous administrative actions. The applicant realizes that having received a Driving Under the Influence was the worst decision ever made, and requests for the opportunity to move forward in life and expand opportunities by upgrading the discharge. The applicant knows that the last period of the career was not as honorable as the first period, but believes that an upgrade would afford more civilian opportunities. The applicant knows there is no guarantee of being eligible to receive an upgrade, but would like to thank the Board for their consideration. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 15 March 2019, and by a 3-2 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 18 September 2016 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: Commander's Report, dated 11 June 2016, reflects the applicant's commander initiated separation proceedings, because the applicant on or about 5 June 2016, drove under the influence of alcohol on Schofield Barracks, Hawaii. He was stopped by the police for speeding and failing to stay in his lane. A subsequent breathalyzer test revealed a blood alcohol content of .129%, thus exceeding the legal limit. (3) Recommended Characterization: NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NIF (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 19 July 2016 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 8 January 2013 / 4 years, 21 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / HS Graduate / 119 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 42A10, Human Resources / 3 years, 8 months, 11 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, Hawaii / None f. Awards and Decorations: AAM, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR, MOVSM g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: General Officer Memorandum Of Reprimand, dated 17 June 2016, for driving under the influence of alcohol on 5 June 2016. He was stopped by the police for speeding and failing to stay in his lane. A subsequent breathalyzer test revealed a blood alcohol content of .129 percent, exceeding the legal limit. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application; two character statements; and, an Order for Dismissal. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or being absent without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. Army policy states that an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate; however, a general (under honorable conditions) or an honorable discharge may be granted. Paragraph 14-12c states a Soldier is subject to action per this section for commission of a serious military or civilian offense, if the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge is, or would be, authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts-Martial. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The record confirms that the applicant's discharge was appropriate because the quality of his service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. It brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that the applicant's service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance, such that he should have been retained on Active Duty. The applicant contends the event that caused his discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. Although a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant contends that he had good service. The applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered. The applicant is to be commended for his accomplishments. The applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge will allow him to obtain better employment. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant's performance. They all recognize his good conduct while serving in the Army; however, none of these statements provide any evidence sufficiently compelling to overcome the presumption of government regularity. The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. 9. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 15 March 2019, and by a 3-2 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / Issue a New Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change Authority to: No Change e. Change SPD / RE Code to: No Change Authenticating Official: Legend: AWOL - Absent Without Leave GD - General Discharge NCO - Noncommissioned Officer SCM - Summary Court Martial BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge HS - High School NIF - Not in File SPCM - Special Court Martial BH - Behavioral Health HD - Honorable Discharge NOS - Not Otherwise Specified SPD - Separation Program Designator CG - Company Grade Article 15 IADT - Initial Active Duty Training OAD - Ordered to Active Duty TBI - Traumatic Brain Injury CID - Criminal Investigation Division MP - Military Police OMPF - Official Military Personnel File UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge ELS - Entry Level Status MST - Military Sexual Trauma PTSD - Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions FG - Field Grade Article 15 NA - Not applicable RE - Reentry VA - Veterans Affairs ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20170011160 1